> Well, yeah, but I still wouldn't be throwing away GNU/Linux just yet on > that front. I would argue that it's still entirely possible to build a > GNU/Linux system that is more secure than a MS Windows system, > relatively speaking. (Note: I am not saying that GNU/Linux doesn't have > its share of security issues and I am not saying that one can't create a > well-secured Windows server.)
I can understand that this is drifting off track, but as part of the community, how can you relaibly justify this? I don't mean to be facetious, but I have never seen any such justification in existence, furthermore if other aspects are considered such as average required development time to a 'secure' system the argument can be easily swung. Such a comment may have been more acceptable if one were to use openbsd as an example, arguably. Again there are aspects which must be considered, but if we are refering to the operating system alone then should we consider the default install, the number of discrete settings which must be changed? the length of a script which performs these actions automatically? such judgements are hardly quantifiable - due to scalar issues. Remember, if the choice was clear, someone would have 'won' already. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
